Fernando Alcoforado*
This article presents the factors that contributed to Brazil’s failure to achieve high levels of political, economic and social development throughout its history. This failure occurred in the colonial period (1500 to 1821) and during the Empire (1822 to 1889) and the Republic (after 1889) compromising its political, economic and social development. The latifundium implanted during the colonial period still remains in Brazil. The country’s industrialization effort was committed to the internationalization of the Brazilian economy in 1955 and the adoption of neoliberalism in 1990. Brazil, which was dependent on Portugal, became dependent on England and, later, on the United States, the international financial system and foreign capital. The Brazilian economy made rapid growth in denationalization with the increasing penetration of foreign capital and the social problems of the Brazilian nation were aggravated in the contemporary era.
Brazil in the colonial period (1500 to 1821)
From 1500 to 1821, in the colonial period, Brazil centered its economic activity on the production of primary products for export. It was this process that consolidated in Brazil the latifundium, that is, the large rural property, the export monoculture, slavery, the country’s dependent link with the outside and its regrettable consequences. In Brazil, the exploitation colony of Portugal prospered instead of the settlement colony like that which occurred in the United States, characterized by the existence of small and medium-sized properties dedicated to self-consumption and / or the domestic market. It can be said that the establishment of an exploration colony instead of a settlement colony was one of the factors that contributed to Brazil’s economic backwardness throughout its history. In order to keep Brazil economically and culturally backward, during the colonial period, Portugal avoided setting up universities in the country that only occurred late in the 18th century, in addition to opening the ports in 1808 that favored Britain’s interests by deepening its dependence in relation to the outside.
Brazil during the Empire (1822-1889)
The Independence of Brazil in 1822 was a false independence because it remained subordinate to Portugal, in addition to being an “independence without revolution” because there were no changes in the nation’s economic base. The State that was born from the Independence of Brazil maintains the execrable latifundium and intensifies the no less execrable slavery, making it the support of the restoration it carries out regarding the economic structures inherited from the Colony. In addition, Brazil paid a heavy indemnity to Portuguese coffers for the fact that Portugal granted Brazil’s independence. The Independence of Brazil differed from the experience of other countries in the Americas because it did not present the characteristics of a typical national-liberating revolutionary process. Revolutionary nativism, under the influence of the ideals of liberalism and the great revolutions of the late eighteenth century, gave way in Brazil to the logic of change, preserving the privileges that still prevail today. The main deplorable fact of the Independence of Brazil is that it did not result from the struggle of the Brazilian people, but from the will of Emperor D. Pedro I. Unfortunately, the Independence of Brazil did not lead to the abolition of slavery that would benefit the main social segment that inhabited the country, the enslaved Africans.
D. Pedro I authorized huge expenses with the Cisplatina War that took place from 1825 to 1828, between Brazil and Argentina, for the possession of the Province of Cisplatina, today Uruguay. The money spent in the fighting has greatly imbalanced the Brazilian economy, which is already debilitated with the payment to Portugal for the recognition of Brazil’s independence. The unfavorable outcome for Brazil with the Cisplatin War that wished Uruguay to remain integrated into the Brazilian Empire worsened the political crisis in the country and was one more reason for Brazilians’ dissatisfaction with Emperor D. Pedro I who abdicated the throne on April 7, 1831 after the murder of the journalist Libero Badaró, a great critic of the Empire of Brazil, which made the Emperor’s political support precarious. The departure of D. Pedro I from the imperial government represented a new phase for Brazilian political history. Not being old enough to assume the throne, his son, D. Pedro II, should have waited for his majority to become emperor. To solve this problem, to govern Brazil, a Provisional Regency was elected and, subsequently, a Permanent Regency. A troubled period began, in which the country’s territorial unity and central authority were questioned and put to the test by riots, revolts and rebellions throughout Brazil. In the year 1840, at the age of fifteen, Dom Pedro II was crowned Emperor of Brazil. From that moment on, he would become the most important political figure in the country for practically five decades.
During the Empire, Brazil was involved in war against Paraguay, which was the largest international armed conflict between the years 1864 and 1870 in South America. Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay signed a military agreement called the Triple Alliance that defeated Paraguay and decimated half of its population. With regard to Brazil, the war cost thousands of lives (60,000) and affected the economy, requiring several loans from England to maintain the country’s financial balance. England did not participate directly in the war, but it was the only country to profit from it, because it expanded its markets and Brazil increased its debt to the United Kingdom. Reaching its peak between 1850 and 1870, the imperial regime subsequently declined with the development of various events such as the end of the slave trade and slavery and strife with the military and religious that shook the monarchy. The first blunt blow against D. Pedro II took place in 1888, when Princess Isabel authorized the release of all slaves by British imposition. From then on, the government lost the support of the large landowners, the last pillar that supported the existence of imperial power. In the following year, the worsens of relations between the Army and the Empire was enough for a military coup to overthrow the Monarchy and proclaim the Republic in Brazil.
Brazil during the Old Republic (1889-1929)
The main deplorable fact of the Proclamation of the Republic is that it did not result from the struggle of the Brazilian people, but from a coup d’état sponsored by the Army with the support of the economic oligarchies that dominated Brazil. The Proclamation of the Republic repeated what happened with the Independence of Brazil, which did not result from the struggle of the Brazilian people, but from the will of Emperor D. Pedro I. The Republic born of the coup d’etat maintains the agrarian-economic model exporter who privileges the interests of oligarchies since 1500 with the execrable latifundium inherited from the colonial period. Deplorable, too, was the country’s subordination to England since 1810.
The Old Republic, or First Republic, is the name given to the period between the Proclamation of the Republic in 1889 and its end with the outbreak of the 1930 Revolution. The Old Republic had two moments: the Republic of the Sword and the Republic Oligarchic. The Republic of the Sword covers the governments of marshals Deodoro da Fonseca and Floriano Peixoto. It was during the Republic of the Sword that the Constitution was granted that would guide institutional actions during the Old Republic. This period was marked by economic crises, such as Encilhamento, and conflicts such as the Federalist Revolution and the Armada Revolt. The Oligarchic Republic was marked by the political control exercised over the federal government by the São Paulo coffee oligarchy and by the rural elite of Minas Gerais, in the well-known “coffee with milk policy”. It was during this period that coronelismo developed more strongly, guaranteeing regional political power to the various local elites of the country. During this period, there were several social conflicts such as the Canudos War, the Vaccine Revolt, the Chibata Revolt, the Contestado War, Tenentismo, Coluna Prestes and Cangaço. This period also marks the rise and fall of the economic power of farmers in São Paulo based on the production of coffee for export. In the Old Republic, the country’s subordination to England, which occurred since the Empire from 1810, was also maintained.
The agrarian-export economic model, which was adopted from the colonial period from 1500 to 1930, had as main stakeholders in its maintenance the class of landowners and agro-export sectors. The world economic crisis that profoundly affected coffee production in 1929 was one of the factors that led to the fall of the Old Republic, which was harmful to Brazil because it maintained the agrarian-export model that was structured based on the latifundium since 1500. Deplorable, too, it was the exercise of power in a pseudo-democratic manner by the oligarchies that dominated Brazil that contributed to the outbreak of the political crisis resulting from the fraudulent election of the successor of then President Washington Luís, which was another factor that resulted in the so-called Revolution of 30 and the rise to power of Getulio Vargas.
Brazil during the Vargas Era (1930 to 1945)
When Getúlio Vargas came to power, the period of industrialization in Brazil began. The national developmentalist economic model adopted by the Vargas government promoted the development of Brazil with an import substitution policy based, fundamentally, on government investments, especially in infrastructure, investments by state companies and investments by national private capital. Vargas based his administration on the precepts of populism, nationalism and labor. Economic policy started to value the internal market that favored industrial growth and, consequently, the urbanization process. The modernization of Brazil initiated by the Vargas government did not, however, lead to changes in the agrarian structure that continued to be dominated by the latifundium. The Vargas Era therefore marks the change in the direction of the Republic, with the country’s political power being shared between large landowners and industrial entrepreneurs.
Getúlio Vargas, who governed Brazil from 1930 to 1945, instituted the dictatorship of the Estado Novo in 1937 after the outbreak of the revolutionary movement promoted by the communists in 1935 which was crushed by the federal government. With the end of World War II in 1945 became clear, the rejection of the government of Getúlio Vargas grew, which was forced by pressure from democratic political forces to grant amnesty to political prisoners, to allow freedom of party organization, to convene a new National Constituent Assembly and schedule new elections. On October 29, 1945, under pressure from the United States government, military invaded the government headquarters, Palácio do Catete, in Rio de Janeiro, and forced the resignation of President Vargas. Thus, the fall of the Estado Novo was consolidated. Vargas’s deposition occurred not only because the dictatorship of the Estado Novo was incompatible with the new times of democratization in the world after the Second World War, but also to tie Brazil to the interests of the United States that happened under the government of general Eurico Gaspar Dutra.
Brazil during the Democratic Republic (1946-1964)
After the deposition of Getúlio Vargas, General Eurico Dutra was the first president elected by direct vote. Internally, the first major action was the convocation of the National Constituent Assembly that drafted the laws to be integrated into a new Constitution. Officialized in 1946, the new Brazilian Constitution determined the autonomy between the three branches of government and the holding of direct elections for state, municipal and federal executive and legislative positions. In the economy, the country’s foreign exchange reserves have been decreasing, the national industry has decelerated and the foreign debt has grown again, making the country increasingly vulnerable economically. President Dutra who ruled Brazil from 1946 to 1950 experienced the tensions and problems that marked the development of the Cold War on the international political scene after the Second World War. The Dutra government did not continue the nationalist project of Getúlio Vargas and made Brazil subordinate to the United States with the alliance it made with the American government, a fact that had repercussions on authoritarian political actions at the domestic level. By imposition of the United States, the Communist Party, after receiving a significant amount of votes in the 1946 elections, was made illegal and all civil servants belonging to the same party were exonerated from their positions. Shortly thereafter, the government of Brazil announced the end of its diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.
Getúlio Vargas returned to governing Brazil from 1951 to 1954 when a much more ambitious and complete planning effort was carried out than in the previous period with the adoption of a national developmentalist economic policy. On that occasion, there was one of the most complete surveys on the Brazilian economy, in addition to proposing a series of infrastructure projects with their execution programs, including projects for the modernization of railways, ports, coastal shipping, electricity generation, etc. Measures were taken to overcome regional income disparities, especially to better integrate the Northeast with the rest of the national economy and to achieve monetary stability. BNDES and Petrobras were also created. Accused of trying to assassinate Carlos Lacerda and of the death of Major Rubens Vaz, President Vargas committed suicide for not accepting his overthrown by the military in 1954, and his attitude also represented the final act of the first of a Brazilian ruler who guided his action in defense of the country’s economic and social progress and national sovereignty. Despite the economic successes in promoting the industrialization of Brazil and in creating government institutions to promote economic and social development and of the social advances resulting from new legislation, the Vargas Era, from 1930 to 1945 and from 1951 to 1954, had as a deplorable fact the represented for the state of exception that was implemented from 1937 to 1945 in which the Vargas government imprisoned in its prisons and murdered many of its opponents.
Juscelino Kubitschek ruled Brazil from 1955 to 1960. Brazilian industrialization takes a new direction. Until then, during the Vargas administration, the industrialization process had advanced under the leadership of the Brazilian company. After the Juscelino Kubitscheck government, foreign capital will gradually take over the most dynamic branches of the Brazilian economy. The expansion of the Brazilian economy was made with the growing participation of oligopolized foreign capital that made its investments aiming at the complete conquest of the national market. After the Kubitschek government, the denationalization of the national economy with foreign capital was deepened, taking charge of the industrialization process in Brazil and the national industry being left to its own devices as it suffered competition from external groups attracted by official incentives and advantages. Jânio Quadros replaces Juscelino Kubitscheck in 1961 and resigned after governing Brazil for 7 months.
Vice-President João Goulart assumed the Presidency of the Republic on September 3, 1961 under parliamentary regime under the direction of Tancredo Neves, which was the political solution found in the face of Leonel Brizola’s struggle to defend the legality to secure the inauguration of João Goulart and opposition of the Armed Forces to his inauguration. After putting an end to parliamentarism through a plebiscite, João Goulart sought to implement the basic reforms to overcome the great structural problems experienced by Brazil and to face the economic, political and social crisis that existed in the early years of the 1960s. Basic reforms initiatives were taken that aimed at banking, fiscal, urban, administrative, agrarian and university reforms. It also included offering the right to vote to the illiterate and to the subordinate ranks of the Armed Forces. The measures also sought greater participation by the Brazilian State in economic matters, regulating foreign investment in Brazil. Among the changes intended by the basic reforms was, in the first place, land reform. The aim was to enable thousands of rural workers to have access to land in the hands of the latifundium. The profit remittance law sought to reduce the very high profit rate that large foreign companies sent from Brazil to their headquarters. Basic reforms aimed at economic and social progress and the defense of national interests. The João Goulart government was the last in the history of Brazil that sought to promote economic and social progress and the defense of national interests.
The João Goulart government’s push for the implementation of basic reforms began on March 13, 1964 through a large rally at Central do Brasil in Rio de Janeiro. At this rally, President João Goulart announced the signing of the decree that nationalized private oil refineries and the decree that expropriated unproductive land located on the side of roads and railroads. As the proposals had a nationalist nature and were influenced by the thought of the left, the defenders of capitalism, of the latifundium and members of the Brazilian right feared about the growth of a possible communist government in the country. The rally in Central do Brasil was the decisive moment to determine the organization of the military to start the coup d’état that was launched on March 31, 1964, establishing a military dictatorship in the country to abort the economic and social changes sponsored by the João Goulart government. The Armed Forces acted to overthrow the Goulart government influenced by the ideological polarization experienced by Brazilian society at that political juncture and, also, due to the breakdown of hierarchy and discipline with the upheaval of subordinate sectors that was the main factor that caused the legalistic military to stop support of the government of João Goulart, facilitating the coup movement.
Brazil during the military dictatorship (1964 to 1985)
With the deposition of João Goulart, institutional acts were promulgated during the governments of generals Castello Branco (1964-1967) and Artur da Costa e Silva (1967-1969) that ended the rule of law and democratic institutions in the country. In order to contain the manifestations of opposition, General Costa e Silva enacted, in December 1968, Institutional Act No. 5 that suspended the activities of Congress and authorized the persecution of opponents. From 1968 to 1973, Brazil experienced high rates of economic growth, generating a climate of optimism soon called “the economic miracle” and industry was the main sector in the development boom that began in 1968. During the military dictatorship, there was an implementation of three PNDs – National Development Plan in the Garrastazu Médici, Ernesto Geisel and João Figueiredo governments. It was, mainly, under the Ernesto Geisel government, with the II PND, that the objectives were defined to complete the Brazilian industrial structure, to substitute imports of basic inputs and capital goods, to overcome the exchange problems resulting from the oil crisis, to develop coal projects, non-ferrous, sugarcane alcohol, electricity and oil implanted in the 1970s in various parts of the country and contribute to the deconcentration of productive activity in Brazil. The model of dependent capitalist development from the Juscelino Kubitschek government in 1955 was maintained until 1985 by the military rulers who took power with the 1964 coup.
The recession and the rise in unemployment in the early and late 1980s took on an unknown dimension. The characteristic of the Brazilian economy that is most evident is that the sharp drop in the pace of growth indicated the exhaustion of a pattern that gave it impressive dynamism throughout the period of modern industrialization, particularly after the mid-1950s. With the faltering economy, the return of some exiles who were in charge of reporting the barbarities witnessed or experienced in the basements of the dictatorship, and the pro-amnesty campaign taking to the streets, Brazilian society was winning the struggle for democracy. The spaces of struggle for the end of the military’s presence in the central power were multiplying. In the last months of 1983, a campaign for direct elections for president, the “Diretas Já”, which brought together various political leaders, began across the country. The movement peaked in 1984, when the Dante de Oliveira Amendment was voted, which intended to reestablish direct elections for president. On April 25, the amendment, despite obtaining a majority of the votes, failed to obtain the 2/3 necessary for its approval. Soon after the April 25 defeat, a large part of the opposition forces decided to participate in the indirect elections for president. PMDB launched Tancredo Neves for president and José Sarney for vice president. Having gathered the Electoral College, the majority of the votes went to Tancredo Neves, who defeated Paulo Maluf of the PDS, candidate of the military dictatorship. In this way the military dictatorship ended. Tancredo Neves passed away before taking office, a fact that made Vice President José Sarney to occupy the Presidency of the Republic.
It is worth noting that from 1980 to 1989, during the João Figueiredo and José Sarney governments, there was a profound deterioration in the economic and social situation in Brazil. In the 1980s, Brazil presented a deficit in the balance of payments that worsened with the second “oil shock” and the sharp rise in interest rates in the international market. The development model based on the import substitution process and dependent on technology and foreign capital, which peaked in the 1970s, was exhausted in the early 1980s. The 1980s and 1990s marked the longest and most serious crisis of Brazil in its history only surpassed by the current economic crisis that broke out in 2014, which was aggravated by the pandemic of the new Coronavirus. With the end of the military dictatorship, there was a need to draft a new Constitution. The National Constituent Assembly began to meet in February 1987 and only ended its activities in September 1988. In addition to federal deputies and senators, there was also the presence of “notables”, that is, specialists in various matters that related to the citizenship, education, jurisprudence, that is, all matters related to the legal building of a Federal Constitution. The new Constitution was enacted on October 5, 1988 and remains today as a fundamental law of Brazil, that is, it is the basis for the entire Brazilian legal system.
Brazil during the new Republic (from 1988)
Fernando Collor de Mello was the first president of Brazil elected directly by popular vote after the end of the Military Regime in 1985 and the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution. His government had to face a severe financial crisis, which required drastic measures. The exits offered by his team of economists, such as the Collor I and Collor II plans, proved disastrous, provoking a strong popular rejection. As if that were not enough, the treasurer of Collor’s presidential campaign, Paulo César (PC) Farias, was accused of being involved in a corruption scandal. This suspicion ended up involving the president in the scandal, a fact that cost not only his office, but also his political rights.
Adopting, in a subordinate manner, the neoliberal adjustment strategy formulated by the Washington Consensus, the Itamar Franco government, which replaced Fernando Collor, and the Fernando Henrique Cardoso government (FHC), which replaced the Itamar Franco government, began to fulfill its three described steps below: 1) stabilization of the economy (combating inflation); 2) carrying out structural reforms (privatizations, deregulation of markets, financial and commercial liberalization), and 3) resumption of foreign investments to leverage development. The Itamar Franco and FHC governments processed the fight against inflation with the Real Plan, privatized state companies and opened the national economy even more to international capital. The Lula government maintained the same policy as its predecessor FHC, with the exception of the privatization policy. The Dilma Rousseff government continued the FHC and Lula governments that preceded it, resuming the privatization policy that had the name of public-private partnership.
The neoliberal economic model adopted in Brazil resulted in the economic recession that started in 2014, the general bankruptcy of companies, the mass unemployment that reached 13 million workers, the underutilization of 27 million workers, the deindustrialization of the country and the increase in the denationalization of what remains of public assets in Brazil and, consequently, in greater subordination of the country in relation to the outside world. The recessive economic crisis associated with systemic corruption that was present in several federal government agencies made Dilma Rousseff, who was president of the Federative Republic of Brazil from January 2011 to August 2016 (reelected in the 2014 elections), suffer rejection of the economically dominant classes, of a large part of the population and of the majority of the National Congress and suffered an impeachment process that took place with a parliamentary coup that resulted in his removal from office.
The Michel Temer government, which replaced that of Dilma Rousseff, further aggravated the economic and social situation in Brazil by adopting measures that deepened the recession and made the resumption of Brazil’s development unfeasible. The results are there: negative economic growth, external imbalances, deindustrialization of the country, productivity stagnation, generalized bankruptcy of companies, mass unemployment, high internal debt, fiscal crisis of the federal, state and municipal governments and, now also a setback in the field of social achievements with the adoption of labor reform. With the Jair Bolsonaro government starting in 2019, Brazil’s future is even more threatened because it is radicalizing even more in the adoption of the neoliberal model whose consequences will be dire for social rights, the environment and Brazil’s independence from the great powers and international capital. At the time when we live with the Jair Bolsonaro government, there is no space to advance democracy, social rights, environmental protection and national independence. On the contrary, there is an attempt to eliminate democracy and social and environmental rights and the deconstruction and denial of the gains already achieved by the subordinate classes and by the Brazilian nation to achieve their emancipation.
Conclusions
From the above, it is evident that the problems faced by Brazil at the moment and unresolved result from factors that have been added up and accumulated throughout its 520-year history, that is, in the colonial period and during the Empire and the Republic. The failure of Brazil to build political, economic and social progress throughout its history has caused the country to face the current problems that have been created and persist since the colonial period, whose attempts to overcome them were aborted by the repression against social movements, for the overthrow of governments committed to the country’s economic and social progress and the defense of national interests, as well as the adoption of anti-national and anti-social government policies. Brazil will only achieve effective economic and social progress when it carries out an agrarian reform that removes the secular latifundium existing in the country, when it implements the State of Social Welfare that ensures the full attendance of the basic needs of the population in terms of employment, education, health, transport, housing, basic sanitation and leisure, when to eliminate the divorce between the State and Civil Society, ensuring the people’s democratic participation in government decisions at all levels through plebiscite and referendums and when the government prioritizes the interests of the great majority of the population and guarantee national sovereignty.
* Fernando Alcoforado, 80, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development by the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is author of the books Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017), Esquerda x Direita e a sua convergência (Associação Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018, em co-autoria) and Como inventar o futuro para mudar o mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019).
Site Title 